similarly compare the system in which he is an expert with that from which it has been mainly derived. He is heartily welcome to any transportable improvements he may discover. The one return to be asked of him is that he shall not praise English law for its defects. He quoted at the Mansion House an American judge's description of the two courses open to disappointed American suitors. They may either appeal the case or go away and swear at the court. With reasonable professional feeling he seems to regret that his countrymen are unlike Englishmen in inclining to the second alternative. He is as an American, though not as a lawyer, ungrateful at any rate in seeming to reprobate the American disregard of the liberty of appeal. It is devoutly to be wished that English litigants were slower to use it. Redundancy of appeals is the disgrace of English law. It would frequently be better to go away and swear at the court in moderation. Courts however have broader shoulders here perhaps that in parts of the United States. Of the incorruptibility and impartiality of British courts there can be no question. The praise is so indisputable that the judges can themselves join in it without consciousness of an indulgence in vainglory. Care simply for the true decision is an obvious quality of British judges. Sir Hardinge Giffard uttered on Wednesday a hope that no political and constitutional changes may be allowed to sully judicial patronage at its source, without any real fear that the Nation would in any circumstances suffer the intolerable pollution. The extent to which recent legal reforms have restored to the Nation possession of its own law, and made law a manageable and available instrument of National life, is more debatable ground. Lord Justice Lindley does not claim without cause that English jurisprudence in the last few years has shaken off a vast load of technicalities. It has become more practical and heedful of common sense. It employs the learning of the past as a clue to the truth, and does not feel it a deep groove from which it may not try to escape. The sole doubt is whether the evident amelioration there has been of legal processes, and the advance toward a certainty of the triumph of right in the end, have been sufficiently matched by an improved prospect of final and speedy deliverance from the legal labyrinth. English law, though much less unintelligible and artificial than formerly, remains for the litigant, as it has been said to be for the practitioner, a jealous mistress, that bears no rival. No wise man will go to law now any more than of old who is not prepared to make it for an indefinite time his profession. A suit progresses more swiftly than in the days of Lord Eldon; it is scarcely easier for a suitor to be sure when, if ever, he will be out of it for good and all. In view of all the unavoidable complications of modern existence it is unfair that a necessary like litigation should be a resource against which prudence warns in the United States according to the minister, suitors either appeal or swear at the court. They are not hung up on both horns of the dilemma at the same instant. In England it is not to be assumed that they abstain always from the second form of intemperance because they are extravagantly addicted to the first. NEW BOOKS AND NEW EDITIONS. SHARSWOOD & BUDD'S LEADING CASES ON REAL PROPERTY. The second volume of this series is at hand. We can do no more than reiterate our opinion expressed on the publication of the first volume. The editorship has been deprived, by death, of the services of the accomplished Judge Sharswood, but Mr. Budd shows good discrimination in selection, and his notes are well conceived and arranged. The work is published by M. Murphy, of Philadelphia. CORRESPONDENCE. SURETYSHIP. Editor of the Albany Law Journal: The death of one of two joint sureties discharges his estate both in law and in equity. Wood v. Fisk, 63 N. Y. 245. But to effect that result the undertaking must be joint, and not joint and several. Id. The relation also must be strictly that of a surety. Richardson v. Draper, 87 N. Y. 337. And the rule obtains in case of direct proceedings by a creditor against the legal representatives of the deceased surety, but not where the action is brought by a co-surety for contribution. Johnson v. Harvey, 84 N. Y. 363. The doctrine of the last cited case would seem to eucourage circuity of actions, or make it necessary, rather than to discourage the same, which generally is the policy of the law. In Richardson v. Draper, supra, Earl, J., delivering the opinion, makes in passing the following observation: "The reasoning upon which the exemption of the deceased surety's estate from liability is founded, though sanctioned by numerous cases, is not very convincing, and has not always been viewed by judges and jurists with favor. It is difficult to perceive why the estate of a surety who was a joint obligor, upon whose credit and responsibility mainly the obligee loaned his money, should be discharged by the death of the surety. It would seem that in good conscience and sound morals, and upon principles of natural justice, it should respond and bear the loss, if any, rather than the obligee who trusted the surety." The views of Judge Elliott with respect to the importance of following precedents, as cited in the ALBANY LAW JOURNAL of June 13, 1885, are sensible and judicious. To determine when to depart from precedent is most difficult. But such power should exist. J. B. DALEY. June 19, 1885. THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS. HE following decisions were handed down Tues day, June 23, 1885: Judgment affirmed with, costs-Crosby v. Hotaling; Adamson v. Elwell; Almy v. Thurber; Risley v. Abbey; Langley v. Sixth Avenue Railroad Co.; Pond v. Starkweather. Order affirmed, with costsWoerrishoffer v. North River Construction Co.Order of General Term reversed; that of Special Term affirmed, with costs-Rice v. Barrett.- Judgment affirmed-People v. Morse alias West.- -Motion for reargument denied, with costs-Jackson v. Andrews. -Motion to amend remittitur denied, with costsCarpenter v. New York, Lake Erie & Western R. Co. -Motion to amend remittitur. Granted, with costs to be paid by appellant and without costs of this motion-In re Petition of Waring and another.Motion to amend remittitur. Granted and remittitur to be amended so as to allow appellants costs of appeal, together with all necessary disbursements in both-In the matter of the final accounting of the executors of William Tilden.- -Motion to put cause on calendar for day certain. Denied without costs-City of Brooklyn v. Copeland; Parker v. Supervisors of Saratoga; Haight v. Same; Powell v. Same.-Motion to strike cause from calendar. Granted on payment of taxable costs of appeal and $100 counsel fee-Champlin v. Stodart. "Dakota plan, the," W. H. Lyon on.. 402 damages for injuries caused by matting across side- 441 Davis, Judge, Central L. J., mistaken in regard to 62 461 criticism of Judge Learned's article on same title, 481 ... 101 2 222 181 equity jurisprudence, John Norton Pomeroy's work lawless court," the, account of, by Mr. Ernest law and order, association for enforcement of Su law of the Legislature and of the courts Law Quarterly Review, London, notice of openin law, relations of labor and capital to, Judge Coole on.. lawyer, a (as president). lawyers given "fits" by Chief Justice of Ontario. letters, injunction restraining publication of Lor libel, imprisonment of Edmund Yates for new Lieber, Franz, paper on, by Mr. F W. Holls... "London Stone," essay on, by Mr. Ernest J. Millet madness and crime, Mr. Austin Abbott on. medical expert testimony, Dr. Frank H. Hamilton on.... |